There is a way to point out the drawback of lying in such a way as to get under the skin of the media liars; and which makes a point by doing so. Let me use England to illustrate the point.

That’s England, the country, not “Britain”, not “the UK”, but the nation of England, mostly (still) populated with ethnically English people.

The media in England cannot bear that almost half of their criminal class is from Pakistan. Pakistanis are by far the most obnoxious people in England, even far more than most other Muslims, at least per capita. Pakistanis fill England’s prisons, which are perpetually at maximum capacity because they refuse to build any more for some stupid reason.

Pakistani Muslims commit truly abominable crimes, that the English media universally cover up for them. And how they go about this is with the lowest form of racism.

They call them “Asians”. Not Pakistanis. They intentionally mingle their offensiveness with that of hundreds of other completely different, and generally well behaved peoples. Indians do not do what Pakistanis do. Nor do Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Koreans, etc., etc.

It is *all* Pakistani, *all* the time. If they call a criminal an “Asian”, they mean Pakistani, and everybody knows it. So more recently the English media have taken to ignoring race altogether.

And after this long introduction, let my point out why this is an awful idea.

By concealing this truth, the English media are persuading the English public that *not* *half* of crime, terrorism, and grotesque abuses of humanity are committed by Pakistanis, but that *all* of it is.

“1.9m incidents of violent crime were recorded in 2012-13 by the Crime Survey for England and Wales.”

While the truth is that somewhat less than half was committed by Pakistanis, what is left for the English public to assume is that almost *all* of it was committed by Pakistanis.

If you are English, do you live near any Pakistani criminals? Or is the expression “Pakistani criminals” redundant?

While this sounds bizarre on the surface, it is quite accurate, because not too long ago, the English people saw the expression “Irish criminals” as being redundant.

It took and awful lot of good behavior and shared culture on the part of the Irish to overcome this bigotry, and there are far too few Pakistanis who stand up for good behavior; and their culture, what there is of it, is far too alien and primitive for the English to want anything to do with it.

Indians do not do what Pakistanis do. Nor do Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Koreans, etc., etc.

Aside from Islamic circumcisions of the males (Yes, the Mudslime procedure produces a different appearance than the Jewish one)and the genital mutilation of the females, there should be little ethnic difference between most Indians and Pakistanis. Yet there is apparently a major difference in culture and conduct between the two peoples.

Islam has to be the answer. Indeed, it may well be responsible for a genetic difference in that it allows and encourages first cousin marriages, something neither allowed nor encouraged by other religions and cultures. Such generations long inbreeding produces clear, noticeable physical effects and genetic defects. The brain being nothing more than another organ, it stands to reason that repeated inbreeding has produced similar adverse mental effects in large Mudslime populations that are just not physically observable.